The study investigates how software developers, architects, and AI practitioners select and integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into modern software systems. Interviews with 22 professionals reveal that functional criteria—such as performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features—dominate model choice, while security concerns are rarely considered. The research highlights a pervasive neglect of established software supply‑chain security lessons, leading to vulnerabilities like malicious components, data leakage, and unintended behavior, and offers actionable recommendations for a proactive, security‑by‑design approach.
By Mahzabin Tamanna, Elizabeth Lin, Sparsha Gowda, Laurie Williams, Dominik Wermke
arXiv:2604. 09998v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as promising tools for augmenting Security Operations Center (SOC) workflows, with vendors increasingly marketing autonomous AI solutions for SOCs.
By Souradip Nath, Chih-Yi Huang, Aditi Ganapathi, Kashyap Thimmaraju, Jaron Mink, Gail-Joon Ahn
arXiv:2608. 07446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks.
By Afreen Alam, Evgenija Popchanovska, Ana Gjorgjevikj, Maryan Rizinski, Lubomir T. Chitkushev, Irena Vodenska, Dimitar Trajanov
Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from simple code completion tools to repository‑scale agents capable of retrieving context, editing files, executing tools, and engaging in security‑sensitive workflows. A structured survey up to May 31 2026 reviews LLM work across software engineering and security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design, and introduces an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority. The review highlights that while execution feedback and repository access improve engineering task completion, they do not guarantee security, and static‑analysis labels rarely ensure deployable correctness; it also identifies common validity threats and proposes a minimum reporting protocol and a research agenda focused on jointly secure‑and‑functional benchmarks, repository‑scale threat models, calibrated human oversight, longitudinal maintainability evidence, and reproducible agent evaluation.
By Wei Lin, Tao Zhou, Zhaofei Xie, Changgui Hong
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
By Leah Davis, Dominic Martin, AJung Moon
arXiv:2607. 28617v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: System prompts are instructions configured by developers to govern the behaviors of foundation models in AI applications.
By Xiangning Lin, Shenzhe Zhu, Shu Yang, Zhenyu Zhang, Haoqian Zhang, Yipeng Zhao, Chengxuan Qian, Tianwei Wang, Ziheng Zhang, Zhenlong Yuan, Dingcheng Wang, Juncheng Wu, Yuan Si, Jiaxin Liu, Baolong Bi, Robert Mahari, Tobin South, Dazza Greenwood, Zexue He, Rishi Bommasani, Sophia Kazinnik, Andreas Haupt, Samuele Marro, Erik Brynjolfsson, Alex Pentland, Jiaxin Pei